Jennings v. McCown

• Citation: 81 S.E. 963,97 S.C. 484
• Decision Date: 20 May 1914
• Docket Number: 8854.
• Parties: JENNINGS ET AL. v. MCCOWN ET AL., BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

81 S.E. 963

97 S.C. 484

JENNINGS ET AL. v. MCCOWN ET AL., BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS.

No. 8854.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 20, 1914

Petition for certiorari by L. D. Jennings, John H. Clifton, and others in the same position against R. M. McCown and others, as the Board of State Canvassers. Petition dismissed.

L. D Jennings and J. H. Clifton, both of Sumter, for plaintiffs.

Attorney General Peeples and Fred H. Dominick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.

HYDRICK J.

On motion of the petitioners, a writ of certiorari was heretofore issued by one of the Justices of this court, directed to the state board of canvassers, and requiring them to certify to the court the record in the matter of the contest of the election, held in Sumter county, on August 19, 1913 on the question of the sale of alcoholic liquors in said county. The vote in the election was very close. On the face of the returns, the vote stood 474 for sale, and 489 against sale, a majority of 15 votes against sale. Both sides contested the election before the county board of canvassers. After hearing the evidence and arguments on the various grounds of contest, the county board declared the result to be 470 votes for sale and 466 against sale, a majority of 4 votes for sale. Both sides appealed to the state board of canvassers. On hearing the appeals, the state board found and declared that, on account of irregularities in the election sufficient to affect the result thereof, and on account of the form of the ballot used, there had been no legal election, and that the election was null and void. In its opinion the board said: "We are unable to find that a majority of the votes cast at said election were either for or against the sale of alcoholic liquors and beverages. Said election was so close that existing irregularities are sufficient to affect the result or make it doubtful and difficult to determine. In fact it is impossible to do so, as we cannot positively say on which side each and every illegal vote was cast: 'And when such irregularities or illegalities are of such a character and extent as to leave it doubtful whether the result has not been affected, and especially when it appears that illegal votes have been cast sufficient in number to affect the result, and the polls cannot be purged of them, it would be a travesty on popular government to sustain the election,' said Judge Hydrick in deciding the Wright Case,...